funny isn't it,,,,,,they hound 'arry over suspected bungs......but they let an islamic cleric who hates our guts and wants to kill us go free....also the bankers and corrupt mp's like blair get away with it....selective eh?

So, we are agreed it's not fair John and I never said it was acceptable either but there again where is anything that is not fair ever acceptable? Surely the two are more or less bed fellows!

As far as bringing in some sort of official banding and tax concessions based on profit, well, that would entail having to admit it goes on, how long it has gone on and who has benefitted and by how much!! Fat chance of that ever happening.

It's never been fair, but that doesn't make it acceptable when someone is used then as a scapegoat.

A bit like Kaboul being carded for making 'specs' signs once (an act of disrespect), and Rooney constantly hurling tirades of vile abuse at the officials and getting away with it (he is the epitome of disrespect).

IF Goldman Sachs are to be given 'tax' concessions because of the revenue they bring in, then fine. Make that official. Band it based on revenue - try to encourage them to bring in more to get bigger concessions. Encourage all businesses the same way. Don't keep the rules the same and then bend the rules to suit. That is a recipe for companies then to 'fiddle' and for people like Hartnett of being accused of pandering to big companies.

Exactly. Its the "amount" or the "limit" as John puts it, that makes the difference between us and them. I don't know where that limit is and nor does anybody else.

Of course if you go to the lengths of flying to Monaco and getting your bull dog to sign the bank account opening forms that should raise concerns that something is amiss but you take whatever chances you are prepared to take.

As far as huge companies like Goldman Sachs are concerned, HMRC are treading on eggshells as they are continually threatened with the company pulling out of the UK, taking their billions of revenue and substantial (if not as much as it should be but still substantial) tax payments with them and leaving hundreds unemployed. Of course its wrong and every company should be treated the same but life is not like that. In the same way that not all individuals are treated the same and Blair can get away with paying a pitance in TAX but the guy in the street gets panned if he is caught trying to sneak a cash payment through saving a tenner in VAT. It ain't fair and it never has been and it never will be.

Exactly. Its the "amount" or the "limit" as John puts it, that makes the difference between us and them. I don't know where that limit is and nor does anybody else.

Of course if you go to the lengths of flying to Monaco and getting your bull dog to sign the bank account opening forms that should raise concerns that something is amiss but you take whatever chances you are prepared to take.

As far as huge companies like Goldman Sachs are concerned, HMRC are treading on eggshells as they are continually threatened with the company pulling out of the UK, taking their billions of revenue and substantial (if not as much as it should be but still substantial) tax payments with them and leaving hundreds unemployed. Of course its wrong and every company should be treated the same but life is not like that. In the same way that not all individuals are treated the same and Blair can get away with paying a pitance in TAX but the guy in the street gets panned if he is caught trying to sneak a cash payment through saving a tenner in VAT. It ain't fair and it never has been and it never will be.

This will make you laugh (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/23/tax-dodging-goldman-sachs-greece) - and maybe you'll see a slight similarity to the 'arry case in this paragraph (talking of Hartnett, the boss of HMRC):'.....If he were a politician, the press and the opposition would have forced him to resign by now for the favours he gave Goldman Sachs. The Revenue had been fighting for five years to retrieve tax and national insurance Goldman owed on the salaries and bonuses of its bankers it had paid into accounts in the British Virgin Islands. Other companies that tried the same trick accepted they had broken the law and paid the appropriate back tax and penalties. Goldman stalled for years and disputed "every conceivable point". If you, dear reader, did the same, the Revenue would fine you and imprison you if you refused to comply......'

I don't see the accountants can do any more than HMRC let them do. Therein lies the problem.

If HMRC send out completely mixed messages - and the message appears to be that if you're on PAYE then they'll screw you for every penny (including tips you don't declare), but if you're a big earner or a 'big' company, you can end up 'negotiating' how much you pay. So, IMHO, the problem actually is with HMRC itself, not with anyone actually playing to the limit of the 'woolly rules' they set down.